The influence of a seated break on prolonged standing induced low back pain development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the recent attention to 'sitting disease', health practitioners and scientists are promoting standing in the workplace to decrease sedentary time, despite a high prevalence of low back pain (LBP) development during prolonged standing. The purpose of this study was to assess how a seated break inserted between bouts of prolonged standing would influence LBP development, posture and movement. A total of 20 participants stood for 45 minutes, sat for 15 minutes and repeated this sequence while lumbar and thoracic angles were measured, and LBP visual analogue scale reports were taken. Of the sample, 55% participants reported LBP in standing. A stand to sit ratio of 3:1 did not provide lasting recovery of LBP from standing and pain developers utilised a limited range of their lumbar spine angle and increased thoracic extension, resulting in static postures that caused tissue aggravation that was not resolved after 15 minutes of sitting. Prolonged standing in the workplace has the potential to result in LBP for some workers and alternate ways to reduce sedentary time should be investigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".